Authoritarians of all stripes are dangerous to the people living under their rule and those of neighboring countries. But I don't see much of a threat of left-wing authoritarians gaining power in any developed country currently, and certainly not in the United States, while right wing extremists are in power in multiple countries already, and there is a very real danger of more getting into power.
Originally posted by Artol
Authoritarians of all stripes are dangerous to the people living under their rule and those of neighboring countries. But I don't see much of a threat of left-wing authoritarians gaining power in any developed country currently, and certainly not in the United States, while right wing extremists are in power in multiple countries already, and there is a very real danger of more getting into power.
Authoritarians of all stripes are dangerous to the people living under their rule and those of neighboring countries and left-wing Authoritarians, coming under the guise of saving the people, have the highest body counts of any rulers in all of human history. I don't see a threat of right-wing authoritarians gaining power in any developed country currently, and certainly not in the United States, while left wing authoritarians are in power in multiple countries already, and there is a very real danger of more getting into power as time goes on if the more moderate and conservative elements of the populations do not take a stand against these left-wing authoritarians.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Authoritarians of all stripes are dangerous to the people living under their rule and those of neighboring countries and left-wing Authoritarians, coming under the guise of saving the people, have the highest body counts of any rulers in all of human history. I don't see a threat of right-wing authoritarians gaining power in any developed country currently, and certainly not in the United States, while left wing authoritarians are in power in multiple countries already, and there is a very real danger of more getting into power as time goes on if the more moderate and conservative elements of the populations do not take a stand against these left-wing authoritarians.
Interesting. Let's leave aside the body count discussion for now. Which left wing authoritarians currently in power are you referring to? And which parties and movement do you fear are going to get into power in developed countries?
Originally posted by Artol
Interesting. Let's leave aside the body count discussion for now. Which left wing authoritarians currently in power are you referring to? And which parties and movement do you fear are going to get into power in developed countries?
I can't answer that because our definitions of left-wing authoritarians differ.
I consider any western nanny-state to be a left-wing authoritarian state.
That's nearly all of them.
And the US is moderate right, currently. We are seeing a shift into left wing authoritarianism. We have many elements of it already.
Originally posted by Artol
Oh ok, yeah, then we are talking about very different things.
You do understand that I'm using the actual political science definitions, right?
This is why we are talking about different things.
You see, these western countries think they are Democratic Socialists or Progressivists. This is where you are.
But they are labourists, unionists, socialists, collectivists, dengism, maoism, and social nationalism.
The major differences being the authoritarian police states. They thing they are on the lower half the the political compass but they are not. They are on the top half in the authoritarian sector.
Edit - My post comes off as very condescending to you. That's not what I intended. I do not mean to condescend at you like you're an idiot. I feel most people believe the governments are on the libertarian side of the political compass. But due to the police states with high regulation, they are clearly on the authoritarian side if you look at it under strict political science lenses instead of the commonly understand language used to discuss these topics. I don't know how to make this less "assholey" in the way I worded the above stuff to you. Ignore it. Just think of it, as "dadudemon is just pointing out how the western countries that he calls 'nanny states' are authoritarian in nature when viewed from a political science lens." I hope that makes sense.
Also, it's better to meet people on their terms because the convo ends up like this. This is why I said I don't think it's possible to name specific countries for you since we are likely using different definitions for "nanny-states."
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do understand that I'm using the actual political science definitions, right?This is why we are talking about different things.
You see, these western countries think they are Democratic Socialists or Progressivists. This is where you are.
But they are labourists, unionists, socialists, collectivists, dengism, maoism, and social nationalism.
The major differences being the authoritarian police states. They thing they are on the lower half the the political compass but they are not. They are on the top half in the authoritarian sector.
Edit - My post comes off as very condescending to you. That's not what I intended. I do not mean to condescend at you like you're an idiot. I feel most people believe the governments are on the libertarian side of the political compass. But due to the police states with high regulation, they are clearly on the authoritarian side if you look at it under strict political science lenses instead of the commonly understand language used to discuss these topics. I don't know how to make this less "assholey" in the way I worded the above stuff to you. Ignore it. Just think of it, as "dadudemon is just pointing out how the western countries that he calls 'nanny states' are authoritarian in nature when viewed from a political science lens." I hope that makes sense.
Also, it's better to meet people on their terms because the convo ends up like this. This is why I said I don't think it's possible to name specific countries for you since we are likely using different definitions for "nanny-states."
I hope you allow me a few questions to understand your position better. Are you suggesting that there is a consensus among the political scientific community that most Western countries (including the United States and United Kingdom) are left-wing authoritarian, or are you saying that you applied one of the definitions yourself and have found that all these countries fit the definition?
And accepting for the moment that countries like Sweden and the United States are also leftist authoritarian. Is there terminology that you use to differentiate the level of this "authoritarianism" between United States, Sweden and traditionally more left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba?
https://apnews.com/c7265cc674e61c1953c582052bd4fcc3
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L34odM5nRfk
Let's stop the conspiracies and stick with facts. This is what really happened.
Btw, Lebanon lost like 80% of its currency value. "If your salary was 750,000LP or $500 this time last year, it’s worth 750,000LP or $75 now."
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/total-collapse-lebanons-currency-crisis-explained-1.72966660
Originally posted by Artol
I hope you allow me a few questions to understand your position better. Are you suggesting that there is a consensus among the political scientific community that most Western countries (including the United States and United Kingdom) are left-wing authoritarian, or are you saying that you applied one of the definitions yourself and have found that all these countries fit the definition?And accepting for the moment that countries like Sweden and the United States are also leftist authoritarian. Is there terminology that you use to differentiate the level of this "authoritarianism" between United States, Sweden and traditionally more left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba?
There's political science definitions and then there's what boffins pontificate about in academic opinion papers. Go by the definitions, they are left-wing authoritarians.
Also, I specifically stated the US is moderate right-wing with elements of libertarianism and authoritarianism.
To delve further into this topic, western countries, especially European countries who have mixed economies, are often called democratic socialists to varying degrees.
Well, dive into the actual political ideologies of democratic socialists:
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.
Notice the common them on libertarian left-wingers is the reduction of government and the authoritarian frameworks they operate under?
Compare to social democracy which is often confused for democratic socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social-welfare provisions.
Notice a theme? One is libertarian and the other is authoritarian. One has the government being the master and commander and the other has the people. This is the difference and why I say the political science definitions clearly show how most western countries are left-wing authoritarian. The US appears to be moderate right-wing authoritarian.
Hence, this:
I do not agree with every placement on that compass as Sanders would be far more authoritarian than he is on that chart based on his policies. And every other politician is skewed too far right and authoritarian. But that's at least a starting point.
Originally posted by Artol
Authoritarians of all stripes are dangerous to the people living under their rule and those of neighboring countries. But I don't see much of a threat of left-wing authoritarians gaining power in any developed country currently, and certainly not in the United States, while right wing extremists are in power in multiple countries already, and there is a very real danger of more getting into power.
IMO, Iraq is going to go back to a true dictatorship in the next 10-15 years. Maybe religious based.